HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/07/2005 Regular
.
City of Springfield
Regular Meeting
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY NOVEMBER 7,2005
The City of Springfield council met in regular session in the Council Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday, November 7, 2005, at 7:05 p.m., with Mayor Leiken
presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Leiken and Councilors Ballew, Fitch, Ralston, Lundberg, and Woodrow.
Councilor Pishioneri participated via cell phone. Also present were City Manager Mike Kelly,
Assistant City Manager Cynthia Pappas, City Attorney Meg Kieran, City Recorder Amy Sowa
and members of the staff.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Leiken.
SPRINGFIELD UPBEAT
.
1. Recognition of John Tamulonis for Twenty Years of Service to the City of Springfield.
Mike Kelly introduced John Tamulonis and gave a brief summary of his history with the city. He
commended Mr. Tamulonis on his service in economic development. Mr. Kelly presented a
plaque to Mr. Tamulonis.
Dan Egan, Executive Director from the Springfield Chamber of Commerce came forward to also
acknowledge Mr. Tamulonis. Mr. Egan said Mr. Tamulonis had made a tremendous difference in
Springfield, not only with existing businesses, but for businesses considering moving to
Springfield. He noted that Mr. Tamulonis had supported the Chamber in many ways. Mr. Egan
said they appreciated Mr. Tamulonis' willingness to get involved in the private sector to make
sure it brought what it could to the citizens of Springfield. Mr. Egan presented Mr. Tamulonis
with a clock with the following engraved on it: "John Tamulonis, in recognition oftwenty years
of service to Springfield and many more to the Chamber".
Mayor Leiken said Mr. Tamulonis was not only recognized in the City of Springfield, but
throughout Lane County as the expert on economic development. Mr. Tamulonis received an
award at the Lane Metro Partnership dinner last year for that recognition. Mayor Leiken said
Springfield was grateful to have Mr. Tamulonis here as a leader in economic development.
2. Recognition of Jim Donovan for Ten Years of Service to the City of Springfield.
.
Mike Kelly introduced Jim Donovan and gave a brief summary of his history with the city. He
noted that Mr. Donovan was the city's expert on hillside development. He discussed Mr.
Donovan's love of the outdoors. He noted other humorous events in Mr. Donovan's life. Mr.
Kelly presented a plaque to Mr. Donovan.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7,2005
Page 2
Mr. Donovan said it was a pleasure to serve the citizens of Springfield, the council and to work
with the staff.
CONSENT CALENDAR
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR WITH ITEM 4.E.
REMOVED. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
1. Claims
a. Approval of the October 2005, Disbursements for Approval.
b. Acceptance of the Financial Reports for 4th Quarter Ended June 30, 2005.
c. Acceptance of the Financial Reports for the l8t Quarter Ended September 30,2005.
2. Minutes
a. October 10,2005 - Work Session
b. October 11, 2005 - Joint Elected Officials Meeting
c. October 17, 2005 - Work Session
d. October 17, 2005 - Regular Meeting
e. October 24,2005 - Work Session
.
3. Resolutions
a. RESOLUTION NO. 05-51 - A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT PROJECT P204ll FROM
ASPHALT MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATES. INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$363.917.12.
4. Ordinances
.
a. ORDINANCE NO. 6142 -AN ORDINANCE VACATING A TEN-FOOT WIDE
WALKWAY IN THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD. LANE COUNTY OREGON.
b. ORDINANCE NO. 6143 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE METRO PLAN
DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING 3.6 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SOUTH 32ND STREET AND BOOTH-KELLY ROAD
FROM LIGHT MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
c. ORDINANCE NO. 6144 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE METROPOLITAN
AREA GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING PORTIONS OF THE
MORA WK DISTRICT FROM MAJOR RETAIL CENTER. MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO NODAL DEVELOPMENT
AREA. HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND
ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE
d. ORDINANCE NO. 6145 - AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY IN THE
MORA WK DISTRICT FROM MAJOR RETAIL COMMERCIAL. COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL. LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED USE
COMMERCIAL. MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7, 2005
Page 3
5. Other Routine Matters
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
4. e. ORDINANCE NO.5 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE 40 OF THE
SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE TO REMOVE POTENTIAL BARRIERS TO
IMPLEMENTATION; AND ADOPTING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE.
City Planner Mark Metzger said there was a last minute request to pull this item due to some
confusion over language not added to the ordinance. Staff wanted to try to resolve the issue
before bringing it back to council.
No action was taken on this item.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Annexation of Territory to the City of Springfield (Williams Journal Number LRP2005-
00030).
RESOLUTION NO. 05-52 - A RESOLUTION INITIATING ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF SPRINGFIELD AND REQUESTING THAT
THE LANE COUNTY LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION
APPROVES THE ANNEXATION BY EXPEDITED PROCESS.
.
City Planner Sarah Summers presented the staff report on this item. The applicant and owner
have requested annexation of 0.91 acre of property located at 7297 Holly Street. The site
currently contains one residence. The purpose of the annexation is to incorporate the house and
driveway into property which was previously annexed.
The City Council is authorized by ORS 1 99.490(2)(a)(B) to initiate annexation upon receiving
consent in writing from a majority of the electors registered in the territory to be annexed and the
owners of more than half of the land to be annexed. Consent from all the property owners has
been given, and the applicant has provided evidence that there is one registered voter on the site.
The area to be annexed contains a house that is served by city utilities that was supposed to have
been located on Tax Lot (TL) 5202. Iristead, the house and driveway were built on TL 5201. The
intent of this annexation, along with a concurrent Property Line Adjustment, is to incorporate the
house into TL 5202. The property to be annexed is located within the UGB, and it is adjacent to
the Springfield City Limits. The site already has some city services, including sanitary sewer and
SUB water and electricity. The site can be served with the minimum range of urban services
including but not limited to police, frre protection, library, parks and recreation, and schools. The
City Council Resolution will be forwarded to the Lane County Local Government Boundary
Commission. The owners are requesting Expedited Annexation through the Boundary
Commission.
.
Councilor Ballew asked if this property had been brought before council in the past for
annexation. She asked how the home was built in the wrong place.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7, 2005
Page 4
Ms. Summers said the larger lot, TL520l, had come to the council in the past, but was not
approved. Tonight's proposal was for a small portion of that lot to be joined with TL5202. The
property that was supposed to have the home on it had been annexed for a number of years.
Councilor Ballew asked if this annexation was to put the home inside the city. She asked if the
larger lot was still outside the city.
Ms. Summers answered yes to both of those questions.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
No one appeared to speak.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 05-52. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A
VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
2. Consideration of Exemption from the City of Springfield Contract Review Board Rules to
Allow us of the Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMlGC) Project Delivery System
for Construction of the Springfield Justice Center.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-53 - A RESOLUTION EXEMPTING THE SPRINGFIELD
JUSTICE CENTER PROJECT FROM COMPETITIVE BIDDING. AND AUTHORIZING
THE USE OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGER/GENERAL CONTRACTOR (CM/GC)
PROJECT DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE
SPRINGFIELD JUSTICE CENTER IN SPRINGFIELD. TO BE IMPLEMENTED
ACCORDING TO THE RULES DESCRIBED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
Project Manager Carole Knapel presented the staff report on this item. Oregon Revised Statutes
(ORS) allow for alternative methods of contracting when the project presents unique construction
requirements and when there are budget limitations, time constraints and a complex project
scope. The Justice Center project may benefit from use of the CM/GC strategy because it meets
these four characteristics. In order to utilize the CMlGC strategy, council must conduct a public
hearing, consider testimony, and adopt a resolution exempting the project from competitive
bidding.
Staff initially presented the CM/GC strategy to council at a work session on April IS, and again on
October 17, 2005. In order to use the CMlGC strategy, the project must meet certain
requirements, including: 1) using the CM/GC method will likely result in substantial cost savings
and that 2) it is unlikely that the exemption will encourage favoritism or substantially diminish
competition. The attached fmdings and conclusions oflaw detail how the project meets these
requirements.
.
Because of statutory requirements, the timing of council meetings, and in order to give potential
proposers an opportunity to understand the project, a Request for Proposals for the CM/GC
services has been advertised. The RFP was written in conformance with the applicable state
statutes which address requirements for CM/GC contracting. Proposals are due on November 14,
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7,2005
Page 5
pending council approval of the CMlGC request. The Selection Committee will include a City
Councilor (as a non-voting member), Cynthia Pappas, Len Goodwin, Jerry Smith, Rich Harrison,
Dave Puent, Carole Knapel and Susanna Julber. A representative of Robertson/Sherwood will
also participate in a non-voting role. If the council approves the CMlGC request, the Selection
Committee will recommend the top-rariked frrm to the council. If the council does not approve
the CMlGC request, staff will cancel the solicitation.
Ms, Knapel noted that the CM/GC process was chosen for this project for several specific
reasons. She said the Justice Center was a very specialized type of construction project which
required an understanding of the security issues being designed into the project. She said staff
felt it was important that the builder have justice center type experience. She said staff did not
believe this process would limit competition. She said all work under the CM/GC project that
was over $100,000 would require bids with open books. She said the city would negotiate a
guaranteed maximum price at the end of the design/development phase of the project by
approximately May 2006. From that point on, it would be known what was included in the
project and what the budget would be, including actual construction costs. She discussed the
benefit of the CM/GC and the architect working together. During the design a variety of schemes
would be presented by the architect and the CM/GC would help evaluate the cost range for each
of the schemes. She said the city wanted to look at the cost benefit of doing phased construction
versus doing the construction of the facility as one building. The contractor would be able to '
assist with that. For those reasons, staff felt this would be an appropriate process for construction
ofthe Justice Center.
.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
.
1. Shawn Hyland. 2535 Grand Vista Drive. Springfield. OR. Mr. Hyland said he was the
general contractor for John Hyland Construction. He spoke against the CM/GC process. He
said it left out local general contractors because it had such a high emphasis on the criminal
justice facility experience. He said Hyland Construction had built a lot of buildings with a lot
of different technicalities, including hospitals, schools, and libraries. He said he would prefer
to see it as a competitive hid process to save the city money. He said the CM/GC project
allows a general contractor to staff a project with heavier staffmg. He gave an example of a
project bid for a UofO project. He said Hyland Construction had a bid of $2M less than the
other contractors and that was a cost saving for the university. He said that the CMlGC
proposal was geared toward a national frrm which could come in and take subcontractors
from local contractors. He said it would limit local contractors. He said some things written
in the proposal would make the fee go up. He discussed that the CM/GC would be
responsible for architect errors and code compliance issues and how that could affect the
project. He said the fee for the CMlGC would be about two and a half percent higher.
2. John Hvland. 89906 White Road. Springfield. OR. Mr. Hyland said he was the owner of
John Hyland Construction and Hyland Business Park LLC. Mr. Hyland said he also opposed
this proposal. He said he had worked in the Springfield area for over forty years. He said his
company built the Coos County jail in 1987, but he did not qualify for this job as written. He
discussed the number of jobs his company had completed in Eugene and Springfield and
noted that his company did not qualify for this project. He said the way the specifications
were written, local contractors were being eliminated from this project. He discussed the
difference in how national companies staff a project compared to how local companies staff a
project. He said the UofO project was fmishing ahead of schedule and below budget. He
said in reviewing CMlGC proposals, they found that they usually went at 5.5 to 6 percent,
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7, 2005
Page 6
compared to local contractors at 2.5 percent. He said this could translate into a $lM fee over
and above what could be done if a few extra months were taken for the architects to prepare a
good design. He said if the architect did their job, there were three or four local contractors
that were more than capable of building this facility. He urged council to consider this
carefully. He said he was a taxpayer and wanted the tax money to be used efficiently.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
Councilor Ballew asked about the profit margin issue raised by the Hylands.
Mr. Kelly said there was a difference in process between what staff had proposed and the
speakers discussed. He said the one thing gained with the CM/GC arrangement was certainty.
He said there was a certain amount of funding that was approved by the voters for this project.
Under the recommended process, the selected CM/GC would work with the architect through the
design phase on material selection, site location and a number of other things and would agree on
a guaranteed cost. If the standard process was used, the architect would do their best to stay
within the range of expected bids, but the low bid could go higher. If that was the case, the
design and process would need to start over. He said there could be a fee difference in the two
processes, but the trade-off was certainty that the project could be completed within the budget
approved by the citizens.
.
Ms. Knapel added that no one had been disqualified from the process at this point. She said they
had asked that people show they had experience building a justice center. She discussed three
other justice related facilities in the region that had used the CM/GC process with agencies that
had previous justice center experience. There was recognition that there was a specialty
requirement for this type of building. She said certainty was a big concern to staff. She said the
city would want to maximize the use of the funds in the budget efficiently. She said that could be
difficult with the amount of construction activity going on in the region that could influence the
low bid process. She discussed factors that could change the profit margin on a project. She said
if agreement could not be reached with a CM frrm, the city could go back to the low bid process.
Mr. Kelly said as discussed during the work session, there would be a selection process where
people could compete for the CM/GC, A recommendation would be made to the council from
the selection committee. He said council could make a decision on the criteria the selection
committee used and how each criterion could be weighted. It was council's decision which
process was used.
Councilor Lundberg said her biggest concern was that local contractors might be excluded. She
said she was concerned about the criteria. She said she would vote against this unless she could
feel no one was excluded. The criteria needed to allow everyone a fair chance. She would like to
see a fmance person on the committee. She asked if council would have another opportunity to
weigh in on this issue.
.
Mr. Kelly said tonight staff would like to get direction from council on which process to use. If
the majority of council would like to proceed with the CM/GC, they could give staff direction to
change how the criterion was weighted. The selection committee would make the
recommendation, but council would make the decision. He noted that twenty points out of one
hundred had been applied for experience in building justice center type facilities. Council could
reduce the number of points for that or any other criterion.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7, 2005
Page 7
Councilor Lundberg said she would like the criteria to change with less weight on experience or
the alternative of having the contractor bring someone on board with experience.
Ms. Knapel said the contractor could note in their proposal that they would bring someone on
board that had justice center experience.
Councilor Lundberg suggested lowering the justice center experience to ten points, rather than
twenty points and offer more flexibility.
Councilor Woodrow asked why the Hyland's thought they had been excluded from the process.
Mr. Hyland said they had received an email stating that the weight would be heavy on justice
center experience within the past ten years, and their experience building a justice center type
facility was over ten years ago.
Councilor Ralston agreed that the amount should be reduced to ten points.
Mayor Leiken asked how the criterion was developed.
.
Ms. Knapel said they used criteria that had been used in other similar projects in the area. They
had looked at proposals and other criminal justice facilities. This would be standard with what
others were doing. She said the criteria were currently weighted as follows: overall construction
experience - 10 points; qualifications of proposed personnel on CMlGC work - 25 points; justice
facility experience - 20 points; proposed approach - 20 points; local knowledge - 10 points; and
fee - 15 points.
Councilor Fitch said she thought CM/GC was the correct method, but agreed the weight for the
criterion could alter on the experience side. She said there were key issues regarding security and
if someone had no experience in such a facility, it would be a concern. She suggested lowering
the experience to 15 points and raising the overall experience to 15 points. She said that would
give local contractors that had done a great job on other projects to show that they had been able
to bring in large projects at a reduced amount. She suggested adding one more city councilor to
the selection committee. She said in doing the RFP, experience and knowledge must be shown.
She discussed the issue of not yet knowing if the jail would be built and the possibility of change
orders that could cost additional money.
Councilor Woodrow asked Ms. Knapel what the process was from here.
Ms. Knapel said if council approved of this process, staff would receive the RFP's next week, the
selection committee would screen them to determine who they would interview, interviews would
occur the week of November 21 and the selection committee would bring a recommendation to
council on November 28.
Councilor Woodrow asked if the whole council would see all the applicants.
.
Ms. Knapel said if council directed staff, all applicants could be interviewed. Generally, they
would interview the top four or five.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7,2005
Page 8
.
Mr. Leahy said the RFP schedule could be changed if council chose. Staff could send out an
amendment to the RFP that those considering proposals could make their changes before the
deadline.
Councilor Woodrow said he felt the CM/GC was the way to go, but he wanted local contractors
to have an equal chance as anyone else.
Ms. Knapel pointed out that local knowledge was part of the criteria.
Councilor Ralston asked if the fmal cost was one of the determining factors.
Ms. Knapel said the fee proposal was weighted with 15 points.
Councilor Ralston said the local knowledge could be increased if experience was decreased. The
bottom line was to be fiscally responsible and it seemed an out of area contractor could boost the
cost.
Councilor Pishioneri said he concurred that the CM/GC was the best for this project. He also
concurred that using local talent was important. He said the points could be reconsidered. He
said he would support using local people when possible, but the city needed to get the best
building for the best dollar spent.
.
Mr. Kelly said at this time, one councilor sat on the selection committee as an ex-officio member.
He said if council would like, another councilor could be added to the selection committee.
Council could give staff direction on the criteria or could ask the council liaison to work with
staff for criteria.
Councilor Lundberg said she thought council could figure out the criteria during this meeting.
She said she was okay with 15 points for past experience, but she questioned that the experience
had to be within the last ten years.
Ms. Knapel said it did ask for justice center experience over the past ten years, but they were not
prohibited from disclosing experience prior to that.
Councilor Lundberg said the principles in this type of facility had not changed much over the
years. She said it was still uriknown whether or not the jail would be built, if operational funding
was not found. The jail would be the most specialized piece to this facility. She said as long as
there was no prohibition on timing, she would suggest bumping up the local knowledge from 10
to 15 and drop experience from 20 to 15.
Ms. Knapel said once council agreed on the new criteria figures, an addendum would go out to all
interested parties.
Councilor Fitch said if an addendum was added, it would be best to give the applicants an
additional week and she suggested this come back for a Special Regular Meeting on December 5.
Discussion was held regarding the timeline if an addendum was added.
.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7,2005
Page 9
Councilor Ballew said she thought the CM/GC was the way to go. She said the council's primary
responsibility was not to local businesses, but to every citizen in Springfield. She said it was the
council's responsibility to get the best product at the best price. She said she would support
increasing the points for price, rather than local knowledge, from 15 to 20 points.
Councilor Fitch said local experience did not necessarily mean the most cost effective product for
the citizens. If the points were weighted more towards the cost, which was the fee charged by the
contractor, it would create a more efficient proposal.
Councilor Lundberg said local experience did not necessarily mean a local frrm. She would agree
with adding points to the low price.
Mayor Leiken said Springfield had a can-do way. He said it would have been beneficial if the
city had talked with contractors and asked for their advice. That had been the Springfield way
and something to be proud of. He said ultimately council was accountable to the citizens of the
community. He said he appreciated the hard work done by staff.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 05-53 WITH THE JUSTICE CENTER
EXPERIENCE WEIGHTED AT 15 RATHER THAN 20 AND THE FEE WEIGHTED AT
20 RATHER THAN 15 AND TO HAVE THE COUNCIL AWARD OF THE CONTRACT
ON DECEMBER 5 IF NEEDED. THE VOTE PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0
AGAINST.
.
3. Springfield Natural Resources Study.
ORDINANCE NO.6 - AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE SPRINGFIELD NATURAL
RESOSURCES STUDY AND AMENDING THE SPRINGFIELD DEVELOPMENT CODE
TO INCLUDE PROTECTION MEASURES FOR WETLANDS AND RIP ARrAN AREAS
(FIRST READING ONLY).
City Planner Mark Metzger presented the staff report on this item. The Springfield Natural
Resources Study (Study) provides the analysis required by state rules for Goal 5 wetland and
riparian planning. The Study also recommends a package of protection measures that will be
embodied in Article 3 I-Site Plan Review and other sections of the Springfield Development
Code if this ordinance (Attachment 2) is approved. At issue is whether the recommended
approach and the protection measures in the ordinance are appropriate.
The Study proposes a package of protection measures whose objective is to bring the city into
conformance with Statewide Planning Goal 5. Three issues are likely to capture most of the
testimony: 1) the adequacy of the measures for protecting resource sites; 2) the impact of the
measures on property owners, and 3) the impact on the buildable land supply.
.
The Study recommends adopting an approach which "limits" the impact of conflicting land uses
on resource sites. This approach allows flexibility for some development while preserving the
essential functions and values of Springfield's significant wetlands and riparian areas. The
recommended protection measures are based on the standards found in the Oregon Wetland
Planning Guidebook published by the Oregon Department of State Lands.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7,2005
Page 10
The proposed development setback of 25-feet is minimal but meaningful. the ordinance applies
to future development and requires no remediation by owners of existing development. A variety
of uses are allowed within the proposed setback to help reduce the impact to the owner. A
hardship variance is provided that allows staff to work with property owners whose land might be
rendered unbuildable by the protections.
The Planning Commission received testimony concerning the proposed protection measures at a
hearing on October 18. Staff worked with citizens and partner agencies to make changes that are
reflected by comments received in advance of the hearing. Testimony that was received and a
staff response are included in Attachment 4. At the conclusion of the hearing, the commission
voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Study and the protection measures that are
embodied in the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Metzger said he would like ask council to direct staffto make additional findings for their
record in response to testimony that might be received during tonight's meeting. He discussed
the findings included in the agenda packet.
Mayor Leiken opened the public hearing.
.
1. Chris Zilka. 1648 Barton Drive. Eugene. OR Mr. Zilka said he was not from Springfield, but
was born in Oregon and was a veteran concerned about the environment in this area. He said
the Willamette Valley was a hot spot for development and he did not want to see the same
mistakes made here as in other places regarding riparian areas. He said the State of Oregon
lacked a systematic program to assess status of riparian areas that included a continuing
monitoring component. He said riparian areas were some of the most dynamic and
economically rich portions of the landscape. Riparian areas did not exist in thick state for
long periods of time, but were in a state of change. He noted the many ecological functions
to aquatic systems, habitat diversity, organic matter input, wood input, regulation of channel
morphology, stream flow, and temperature mediation. He said riparian areas provided cover
for fish resting or hiding from predators, food for aquatic in vertebrates, refuge from floods,
habitat for invertebrates and fish. Riparian management zones varied by stream size and
flood plain width, but also according to riparian ecosystems function under consideration and
according to attributes of a particular system. He said in addition to the length of riparian
management zones, it was just as relevant that the width of terms of protection of riparian
ecosystems function. He said woody vegetation was in decline in Western Oregon. He said
riparian management zones were common site specific strategies that could be managed to
provide ecosystem functions. He gave examples. He discussed the human benefits of
protecting streams, wetlands and riparian areas. If nature loses, we lose.
2. Roxie Cuellar. Homebuilder's Association (HBA). 2053 Laura Street. Springfield. OR. Ms.
Cuellar said the HBA had been supportive of the riparian setbacks. She said they were a
valued resource and a great amenity for residential developments. She said Goal 5 made a
formal recognition of what the HBA typically had to do regarding setbacks. She said she had
concerns about the ordinances. She said one of the issues was the section regarding
replacement of a building. The Study noted that someone could replace the building with the
same footprint, as long as the surrounding areas were not disturbed, if the footprint was in the
conservation zone. She said that was a problem because if the construction phase could not
disturb any of the area outside the house, the house could not be rebuilt within the original
footprint. She noted the second issue regarding taking out invasive species only if native
vegetation was restored. She would suggest modifying that section. She said it wasn't right
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7, 2005
Page II
.
to punish people for taking out blackberry bushes. She said if a property owner removed
blackberry bushes and did not replace with native vegetation, they would be in violation of
the code. She said that had happened to builders in Eugene. She said erosion could be a
problem, but there were other ways to address that issue. She said the biggest issue HBA had
with Goal 5 was the land supply. She said she knew Springfield was only impacting land
supply by fourteen acres of residential land. The problem was that Goal 5 was a metropolitan
periodic review and that included 440 acres.
3. Al King. 2387 North 32nd Street. Springfield. OR Mr. King said he had a waterway on his
property and explained where it was located. He said he had served on the legislature and
served on the Salmon Committee and the Water Environment Committee and said he felt the
city was dealing with this issue in the right way. He gave an example of a time when an
exception might need to be made when it was very close. He said Springfield was the
riparian richest city in Oregon, outside of Portland. He said this was a chance to do
something right. He discussed the Portland area and how that was not protected as it should
have been. He noted the biologicals that were affected, as well as the aesthetic quality. He
said the property owner before him had made some mistakes with the waterway and this
study gave a tool for education to owners to do a good job with riparian areas. He discussed
blackberries along the Willamette River as erosion prevention. As a member of the
Springfield School Board, he noted that Springfield had one of the best water riparian
education programs in the country. He said it would be great if the school district could work
with the city to incorporate some of the smaller waterways into the education process for
water quality monitoring.
4. Mary Schaufler. 532 Mansfield Street. Springfield. OR. Ms. Schaufler noted her concerns
with the Goal 5, number E. That section stated: "public multi-use paths, access ways trails,
picnic areas are interpretive and education displays and overlooks, including benches and
outdoor furniture" which are underneath the Goal 5 activities that would be allowed within
the wetland and riparian development setback areas. She said if a nature trail was allowed in
the 25 foot setback of her property, it would be on her deck. She noted issues with the
Willamalane Park District when they wanted to put in a bike trail along the McKenzie River.
That bike trail would have been on her deck. She said she didn't see anything in the
terminology that the property owner had protection regarding multi-use paths. She said she
was in favor of setbacks, but said there were already two protections along the McKenzie
River and she didn't see why the City of Springfield needed an additional 25 foot setback.
She said she was paranoid about the multi-use path from past experience. She said she had
attended two other meetings regarding this subject and didn't feel she had gotten a direct
answer to her concern. She said she would like reassurance that a multi-use path would not
go through her deck within the near future.
5. Jada Prane. 36292 Graves Lane. Springfield. OR. Ms. Prane said she owned property at 6079
Main, 1520, 1542 and 1544 North 66th Street. She said she was here to talk about the
property on 6079 Main Street. She said her property ran from Main Street to the top of
Potato Hill, six hundred and sixty feet deep. She said she had concerns and was opposed to
the measure. She said she was in favor of protecting wetlands in general, she did not feel the
strip along Potato Hill was viable wetlands. It was only a winter creek and she had concerns
about what would happen when Mountaingate was developed and how that would affect the
run-off. She said in addition if these wetlands were protected at this location it would
landlock half of her property. She said she would be the one to bear the cost of the property
taxes so the city could protect the wetlands and the area south of wetlands. She said she was
also concerned about the timing of the protection measures. She recently sold a strip across
the property heading east and west for the sewer. She said she had tried to find out if the
.
.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7,2005
Page 12
future Aster Street would be located on top of that area or somewhere to the right or left of it.
She said the location of Aster Street would increase or decrease the amount of distance
between the new street and the beginning of the wetland setback. She said that could result in
a non-viable piece of property as far as development. She discussed the concerns of losing
the value ofthe property. She said the minimum size mattered when identifying wetlands
and the size of the wetland at the bottom of Potato Hill was very narrow. She discussed her
neighbor to the east who had converted their wetland to lawn.
Mayor Leiken closed the public hearing.
Mr. Metzger addressed some of the issues raised by the speakers.
Mr. Metzger referred to Ms. Cuellar's comments about the replacement of a building. He said
her comments were well taken. The intent was not to prevent someone from rebuilding their
house on their footprint and it was assumed there would be some construction traversing around
the building to rebuild the house. He said if wording needed to be added for clarity, staff could
do that. In regard to the invasive species issue, he said it was not required that people remove
blackberries. Where vegetation was removed, however, something else needed to be put back to
avoid erosion issues. He said if replacement vegetation was put in, it would need to be in
sufficient density to prevent erosion.
.
Mr. Metzger referred to Ms. Schaufler's comments. He said properties on the McKenzie and
Willamette Rivers were already protected under a stormwater policy with a seventy-five foot
setback. The plan discussed tonight would not affect her property. She was concerned that
something in this plan would allow a multi-use path on her property. He said what was in the
plan would allow for a board walk to a wetland for an interpretive purpose, but there would have
to be a public action to condemn property in order to take such a walkway across private
property. He said there was nothing in the plan that allowed that type of condemnation. That
would be a separate public action. The plan simply states that a multi-use path or boardwalk
would be a permissible use inside the setback or access way and in some cases would be allowed
into a wetland. He said Willamalane had talked to the city about creating an interpretive center
with a boardwalk going out to a wetland and this plan would allow that. There was a separation
of what was allowed and the condemnation of property that would have to occur in order for a
bike or multi-use path to be built.
Mr. Metzger said Ms. Prane would be impacted by the wetland at the base of Potato Hill. He said
there were a number of properties that were narrow and deep in that area. He said the wetland at
the base of Potato Hill was an ash forest and was wet most of year, but dried out in the summer.
Mr. Metzger said state criteria were used to determine whether or not an area was considered
significant or non-significant wetlands. The areas at the base of Potato Hill met the state criteria
and were reviewed by a professional consulting frrm. He said there was a hardship process. If
Ms. Prane's property was rendered unbuildable, there was a variance process to try to get as much
value in her land and still protect the resource. He said the plan would impact some people. He
said the purpose of the plan was to preserve as much value as possible, but there would be
setbacks that would affect property owners. He said he couldn't address the timing issue
regarding the sewer and construction of Aster Street. He said he would need to confer with
Public Works staff on that.
.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7,2005
Page 13
Councilor Lundberg said there was no way she interpreted the Natural Resources Study to mean
the city would be putting a bike path behind those houses along Mansfield. She said she worked
for Willamalane when the issue frrst came about, but it was no longer on any plans for the future.
She agreed there was no place for a bike path on those properties.
Ms. Schaufler asked why it was still in the terminology.
Mr. Leahy said the terminology was generic and included property across the city. For a path to
go in Willamalane would have to go through a siting process, an eminent domain process and
there would be opportunity for public input.
Ms. Schaufler spoke again of concerns.
Mr. Metzger said this plan would not directly apply to McKenzie River property because it was
already protected under the stormwater plan. None of the provisions in this plan would directly
apply to McKenzie properties.
Councilor Lundberg said the new Willamalane Comprehensive Plan did not include a bike path
proposed in that area. She suggested Ms. Schaufler get a copy of the new Comp Plan from
Willamalane.
Ms. Kieran said the Willamalane Comprehensive Plan was also part of the Metro Plan for the
region.
.
Mayor Leiken asked Mr. Metzger to speak with Ms. Schaufler further regarding her concerns.
Mr. Metzger referred to Mr. King's testimony.
Councilor Woodrow asked about additional fmdings.
Mr. Metzger said in response to tonight's testimony, staff would add material that could
substantiate the record if necessary.
Ms. Kieran and Mr. Leahy said changes could be made to the ordinance that would not affect it
enough to delay bringing it back for a second reading and adoption.
Councilor Pishioneri said he would like to see more wording on invasive species so it was very
clear to homeowners that the city encouraged removal of invasive species and replacement of
native plants. He was concerned about properties that had already done landscaping into the
riparian zone. He asked what would prevent others from landscaping into the riparian zone.
Mr. Metzger said the protection measures allowed property owners to continue to manage their
existing landscaping. He said they tried to preserve the vegetation at undeveloped sites.
Councilor Pishioneri discussed Ms. Prane's property and the prospect of devaluation of her
property and her neighbor who has lawn into the riparian area.
.
Mr. Metzger said there were houses that violated aspects of the ordinance because they had done
something prior to this plan being put into affect. He said it was a given that predevelopment had
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7, 2005
Page 14
.
occurred before these standards were proposed. The plan did not require property owners to go in
and remove their lawns.
Councilor Pishioneri said that was not wrong, but was something that needed to be listened to.
Mr. Metzger said he was not sure of a way to change that. The plan was to preserve riparian and
wetland areas and be reasonable.
Councilor Woodrow asked if he would be addressing the hardship issue with Ms. Prane.
Mr. Metzger said he could not address her specific issue, but the state had a variance through
their Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) that would allow a process.
NO ACTION REQUESTED. FIRST READING ONLY.
BUSINESS FROM THE AUDIENCE
.
1. Brian Antone. 6790 Jacob Lane. Levi Landing. Springfield. OR Mr. Antone said the City
Council could be faced with taking legal action against him and his neighbors based on a no-
build and no-f1llline. He said when he and his neighbors purchased their property, they were
mislead on what could and couldn't be done on their property. Many had made
improvements to their properties and were now faced with potential legal action as they may
or may not be in violation. He asked that the city and council examine the terms of the
easement and what they were allowed to do. He wanted to enjoy his backyard; however,
under unreasonable terms of the agreement, he was unable to do that. He asked that the city
not take action, but to give them the go ahead to work with other involved property owners to
reach a more reasonable resolution.
2. David Calderwood. 28104 Spencer Creek Road. Eugene. OR Mr. Calderwood discussed the
rabies reporting ordinance from Lane County. He provided information which the City
Recorder distributed to the Mayor and council with information regarding this issue. He said
he had provided information in the past as well. He said Oregon had not had a confrrmed
case of rabies in a dog in thirty years, with the exception of one that came from Mexico. He
said council had been told that the incident rate of rabies in bats had been rising in the past
few years. He referred to data provided to council by him that refuted that information. He
referred to the correspondence in the council agenda packet from a member ofthe Lane
County Animal Task Force stating that rabies reporting was the norm across the county. He
said he also provided information that showed that was not true. He discussed a letter from a
law firm in Eugene that was included in the material distributed tonight that dealt with the
privacy issue. He said when this item came before council, there would be a number of
veterinarians who would be present to speak in opposition. He said in the interim, he had
provided council with a number of letters from other veterinarians that bring up interesting
points, such as a concern that pet owners would stop inoculating their pets for rabies if the
ordinance passed. He noted the information received by the county and where they got their
information. He discussed information regarding New Hampshire.
3. Rob Ridge. 6694 Jacob Lane. Levi Landing. Springfield. OR. Mr. Ridge noted that the
actions for the no-build, no-fill were put in place before they became property owners. He
said the statements from contractors could have been construed as misleading. He said he
and his three neighbors purchased land behind the bioswale with no intention of developing
that property. He said there could be different interpretations of the covenants of their homes,
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7,2005
Page 15
.
including planting trees or hedges, or not planting any trees within thirty feet of each other
because they would then be considered a permanent structure. He asked council to bring all
parties together. He said they were taxpayers that did not want to break the law, but follow
the guidelines as interpreted by all parties. He said they had no intention of offending the
Thurston Neighbors. He said the guidelines were very vague. He said it would be nice to
know the interpretations.
4. Sam Harrison. 6718 Jacob Lane. Levi Landing. Springfield. OR Mr. Harrison said he had a
significant piece of property similar to Mr. Ridge. According to the covenants, conditions,
and restrictions (CCR's) it was not clear what they were allowed to do, including plant grass.
He discussed the Willamalane access path next to his property and that he was not allowed to
fence it other than with thirty-foot post centers and two strands of wire, which may be
electrified, according to the rules. Common sense would not allow such a fence because of
children and others using the path. He said they were looking for security and privacy from
the public. He said the rules seemed very vague and they would like clarification on what
they could or could not do.
5. William Vonlessen. 6736 Jacob Lane. Levi Landing. Springfield. OR Mr. Vonlessen said he
was asking that council not take action on the homeowners who live in the Levi Landing
addition, but rather bring all parties back to the negotiation table. He noted the people that
came to the park with their dogs that ran through his property. He said his children, ages
three and eight, were terrorized and chased by dogs including pit bulls, Dobermans and
German shepherds. He said he put up a fence to protect his children from the public and the
dogs. He said he was in violation, but could not risk his child being mauled by an
irresponsible pet owner traveling from the park to their car. He said he also installed the
fence to protect himself from a lawsuit if someone were to hurt themselves on his property
while trespassing on it to and from the park. He said the neighbors were asking for a review
and a chance to work through what they could and could not do on their property. He said he
hoped this could be resolved without any legal or civil action.
6. Rod Johnston. 967 68th Street. Levi Landing. Springfield. OR Mr. Johnston said there were a
couple of questions about the documentation that had caused this disagreement. He discussed
the declaration of the conservation easement which noted that the properties were in the
FEMA flood insurance hazard, but a low-risk hazard. He said he talked with other civil
engineers in the city who were part of the 9-1-1 call center. He said the property was in Zone
X, and the property owners were not required to have flood insurance. He said he and his
neighbors were trying to understand the no-fill and no-build line. He asked that council
review with all parties, including Thurston Rural, Inc. and Levi Landing neighbors. He said
the restrictions and the declaration under the recitals was to assure that the property remained
unobstructed by structures so floodwaters could move over it freely. He said the properties
were in a flood plain, not a floodway. Iri all documentation on this area, the water did not
move across the property, but had backed up. He said he wanted to live in the City of
Springfield and feel safe and secure and part of the rural Thurston area as neighbors.
7. Jason Genck. 6772 Jacob Lane. Levi Landing. Springfield. OR Mr. Genck noted his
appreciation of staff attending to this situation, particularly Bill Grile and Jim Donovan. He
said he appreciated the letter and detailed documentation from Mr. Leahy. He requested an
extension past the deadline that was given to the homeowners to be in compliance. The
original deadline was October 1,2005. He said there were a number of homeowners that
were not clear on the specifics of the issues. He said he would appreciate it if the city would
extend their deadline long enough for the residents to continue to meet with staff and discuss
what was accepted for compliance. He asked for some reasonable flexibility on this issue,
and enforcement considerations because of vagueness of the restrictions.
.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7,2005
Page 16
.
Councilor Fitch asked how long Mr. Genck wanted for the extension.
Mr. Genck asked for a reasonable deadline that council could come up with. He noted the
upcoming holidays. He discussed neighbors who had received letters.
Councilor Woodrow asked how that would impact the city if the deadline was extended.
Mr. Leahy said some of the encroachments in the no-fill, no-build line were already in place. He
said the city sent two letters to everyone who lived along the no-fill, no-build line whether or not
they had encroached. He said he planned to schedule a meeting with council for direction. He
said people testified of vagueness, but there were some items that were not vague that could be
enforced tomorrow. He said he may recommend to council to proceed with citations in situations
where the encroachments were not vague. He said fences were clearly prohibited. He said the
range of questions would be from pavers to fences, The city did not plan to cite anyone until
direction was received from council.
Councilor Woodrow asked those that spoke to guarantee council a moratorium on any further
buildings at this point.
.
Mr. Leahy said there was no one here that stated this was the action of the homeowners'
association, but rather were six individuals. He said he had included the president of the
homeowners' association in the correspondence. Any guarantee would have to come from the
homeowners' association.
Councilor Woodrow said it would not hurt to postpone action until the frrst of February, which
would give the City Attorney time to get information needed to council to make a decision.
Councilor Pishioneri said he had spent a lot of time looking at this matter. He asked Mr. Leahy if
the city would be in a liable situation for non-action based on the Thurston Rural, Iricorporated.
Mr. Leahy said that would be a claim that could be made if no action was taken, but he could not
say whether or not that claim would be meritorious. The present conservation easement which
encumbers the properties provided enforcement by city, the Thurston Neighbor Association or
individual property owners. If the status quo continued without the city taking action, the city
would hear from the Thurston Neighbor Association. He said he believed the city could put off
and let the Levi Landing residents and the Thurston Neighbors know there would be no action
unless directed by council. He said it was up to council. He said no one that spoke mentioned
whether or not they had contacted or spoke with the Thurston Neighbors. He said he had
recommended the Levi Landing neighbors contact the Thurston Neighbors.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if we knew how Thurston Neighbors felt about this issue and if they
were willing to sit down with the Levi Landing neighbors to discuss the issue.
.
Mr. Leahy noted the history of the compromise and the amount of documentation used in coming
to that compromise. He said those at the table during these early discussions were AI Johnson,
representing the developer, Doug DuPriest representing the Thurston Neighbors and three or four
city staff people along with the developer and the Thurston neighbors. Both parties were
represented by counsel at that time. Mr. Leahy said Mr. DuPriest had since sent a letter to each of
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7, 2005
Page 17
.
the neighbors and indicated that it was a no-fill, no-build zone and there should be no building.
Mr. Leahy also met with Mike Whitney, president of the Thurston Neighbors, who expected the
city to follow-up on its commitments. Mr. Leahy said it was his recommendation that the city not
take any action until the City Council has been able to discuss the pros and cons and what they
would like to do. He said he had about twelve to fifteen feet of files in his office related to this
subject.
Councilor Ballew recalled it was a compromise in order to move forward with the development.
Once the city assisted the neighbors in reaching the agreement, they were out of it. If someone
was.in violation of a city ordinance, a complaint could be made to our code enforcement officer
who would go out to look at the situation. She said she would like to see the city step back and
let the parties deal with the issues.
.
Mr. Leahy said that was something they could discuss during their Executive Session in January.
He said when the development was frrst proposed, the developer had data showing there was no
flooding in the area, but the Thurston Area Neighbors brought photos and anecdotal information
that showed there was flooding. He said the hearing official approved the development
application, and then the Thurston Neighbors appealed to Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA).
All parties then decided to work together to try to find a win-win situation to allow the
development to go forward and the concerns of the Thurston Neighbors would be addressed. A
bargain was struck that was a compromise for both. The developer got the certainty to move
forward with development and the Thurston Neighbors got the certainty of having the flood
control measures taken not to build in a certain area. The Thurston Neighbors expected council
to take action and would be looking at the council's handling of the Cedar Creek area on this
particular item and other Cedar Creek issues council may be addressing in the future with other
development.
Councilor Ralston said the agreements were forged with good intentions. He said he would like
more information. He said it was reasonable for people to build a fence to protect their yard. He
was wondering why a fence was considered a problem regarding flooding.
Mr. Leahy said the developer wanted to get his development approved and the Thurston
Neighbors didn't want it approved, but if it were approved, they wanted to have on impediments
to the water flow that could redirect it. He said it was a compromise. He recalled one of the
developers discussing the two-strand barbed wire fence and how horrible that was, but when the
bottom line was writ, the name was on the compromise. That was the deal in the CCR's which
was on record at the time the property was purchased and on the plat line. He said some people
chose not to buy property because of those issues.
Councilor Ralston said he would like to review it further.
Councilor Fitch suggested delaying the matter until after the council had a chance to meet with
Mr. Leahy in Executive Session.
Councilor Lundberg said the city would have to be involved. She said council would revisit the
compromise issues.
.
Mr. Leahy said the city may not need to be involved legally. He said he would look into that
further. If the city didn't need to be involved legally, council could determine if they wanted to
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7, 2005
Page 18
.
become involved because of other issues. He said that would be council's decision. His job was
to bring council as much information as they needed to allow them to make the decision.
Councilor Woodrow asked staff to contact the Thurston Neighbors to let them know that the
council would be discussing this during Executive Session and would postpone any actions until
they had a chance to review it.
Mr. Leahy said he would let the neighbors know when the Executive Session would be held and
give them a date that they could come before council during a Regular Meeting prior to the
Executive Session to speak on this subject.
Mr. Kelly said this would be a significant work topic for staff and the council and would probably
take place in late January.
Councilor Fitch made it clear to those that spoke from Levi Landing that if someone were to build
in the no-build, no-fill area following tonight's meeting, it would affect her decision, as it would
appear that the time given for council to look over this matter had been taken advantage of.
COUNCIL RESPONSE
CORRESPONDENCE AND PETITIONS
.
1. Correspondence from Nick Shevchynski, 2445 Skyline Blvd., Eugene, OR Regarding
Property Located at 2315 Marcola Road.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ACCEPT THE CORRESPONDENCE FOR FILING. THE MOTION
PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
BIDS
ORDINANCES
1. Amendments to the Metropolitan Area General Plan Diagram; the Downtown Refmement
Plan Diagram; the Downtown Refinement Plan Text; and the Zoning Designation of
Properties within the Downtown Refinement Plan Mixed-use Area.
ORDINANCE NO. 6146 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE METROPOLITAN AREA
GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING THE DOWNTOWN MIXED-USE
AREA FROM MIXED-USE TO NODAL DEVELOPMENT/MIXED-USE.
ORDINANCE NO. 6147 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN
REFINEMENT PLAN DIAGRAM BY REDESIGNATING THE DOWNTOWN MIXED-
USE AREA TO NODAL DEVELOPMENT/MIXED-USE. EXCEPT FOR THAT PORTION
LYING EAST OF 8TII STREET AND THAT PORTION LYING BETWEEN 7TII AND8TII
STREETS NORTH OF A STREET CONSISTENT WITH THE METROPOLITAN AREA
GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM DESIGNATION FOR THIS AREA.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7,2005
Page 19
.
ORDINANCE NO. 6148 - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN
REFINEMENT PLAN TEXT CONSISTENT WITH THE METROPOLITAN AREA
GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM DESIGNATION OF NODAL DEVELOPMENT/MIXED-
USE FOR THIS AREA AND WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE
SPRINGFIELD STATION SPECIFIC AREA PLAN REPORT.
ORDINANCE NO. 6149 - AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY WITHIN THE
DOWNTOWN MIXED-USE AREA BOUNDARIES FROM COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL
AND MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL CONSISTENT WITH THE METROPOLITAN AREA
GENERAL PLAN DIAGRAM DESIGNATION FOR THIS PROPERTY.
Councilor Fitch recused herself from this item as she owns property in the existing Downtown area.
Planning Manager Greg Mott presented the staff report on this item. The council conducted public
hearings on these Ordinances on October 17, 2005. The council requested staff to contact the owners of
Springfield Buick and Lithia Motors to determine their preference on remaining in the Downtown Mixed-
Use Area, but outside the nodal overlay.
.
The discussion at the council hearing focused on public testimony from Springfield Buick requesting
exclusion from the nodal overlay, grandfather clause notwithstanding. Springfield Buick prefers to
remain in the Downtown Mixed-Use Area, but outside the nodal overlay. Lithia Motors is uncertain of
the advantages and disadvantages and as of October 31 st had not expressed a preference. Staff amended 4
sections of Attachment 3 to exclude these properties from nodal overlay, keep them in the downtown
mixed use area, and allow either MUC or CC zoning.
Mr. Mott said this was not placed on the consent calendar due to issues addressed during testimony given
during the initial public hearing by the owners of Springfield Buick. He said the context of the testimony
was how this would affect the continued use of that property for auto sales. Council suggested at that
time a compromise to enable that business to continue unabated and unaffected. He said the downtown
mixed-use boundaries that existed predated the Refmement Plan, were in the Development Code and
enabled property owners within the district to develop all of their property without off-street parking, etc.
The proposal to apply nodal designation would affect that, so the compromise was to apply the nodal on
the whole area except the lots between 7th and 8th on the north side of A Street and everything between Sth
and 10th. Those properties would continue to be in downtown mixed-use area, and in the downtown
exception area as defmed in the Springfield Development Code, but not in nodal overlay. He referred to
page 3-7 of the staff report included in the agenda packet, which showed the new Refinement Plan text,
and was included in the third ordinance. He said that also referred to the nodal overlay applying in the
downtown mixed-use area except in the areas noted above, which would remain just mixed-use. Property
outside the nodal designation, but within the downtown mixed-use, may be zoned either mixed-use
commercial or community commercial. He said that maintained the existing zoning on those properties
outside the nodal overlay. Iri response to that, a few changes were made to Exhibit B of Ordinance 4, the
rezoning ordinance. He referred to the second page of the exhibit which referenced the four lots in that
area showing that they would remain in the mixed-use area and would not be designated nodal. He
referred to pages 8 and 9 of Exhibit B which identified every tax lot that was in the downtown refinement
area, but was proposed to be outside the nodal. The exhibit would be changed under the Refmement Plan
designation to indicate that. He referred to page 9 of Exhibit B and explained.
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7, 2005
Page 20
.
Mr. Mott said Mr. Scherer of Springfield Buick was satisfied with the proposal, but Lithia was not sure of
their preference. The folks from Lithia did not follow-up.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NOS. 6146,6147,6148, AND 6149, INCLUDING
THE CHANGES. THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 FOR AND 0 AGAINST
(1 RECUSED - FITCH).
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL
1. Committee Appointments.
a. City Manager Recruitment.
Mr. Leahy referred to the proposed offer of employment letter for the position of City Manager
by Gino Grimaldi that was distributed to council members. This offer was negotiated by
Councilor Woodrow as council president and the result of those negotiations was set forth in the
offer by Mr. Grimaldi.
.
Human Resources Director Bill Spiry discussed the recruitment process. He said council
identified the preferred candidate as Gino Grimaldi. The Finance and Judiciary Committee
authorized Council President Woodrow to engage in negotiation with Mr. Grimaldi with the
objective of identifying the terms that would be acceptable for the purpose of making a job offer
to Mr. Grimaldi. At Councilor Woodrow's direction, Mr. Spiry prepared a letter of understanding
reflecting the terms of those discussions. That letter was reviewed and signed by Mr. Grimaldi
reflecting his acceptance of those terms. To formalize the offer to Mr. Grimaldi, council action
was required.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO ACCEPT OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT FOR THE POSITION OF CITY
MANAGER BY GINO GRIMALDI AS OUTLINED IN THE ATTACHED LETTER.
THE MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
b. Budget Committee Appointments.
Finance Director Bob Duey presented the staff report on this item. The Budget Committee has a
vacancy in Ward 3 due to the December 31,2005 term expiration of Maureen Sicotte. Ms.
Sicotte has served only one term and is eligible to reapply. The person appointed will serve a
three year tern which will expire on December 31, 200S.
The Budget Committee has a vacancy in Ward 4 due to the December 31, 2005 term expiration of
Dwight Dzierzek. Mr. Dzierzek has served two terms and is not eligible to reapply. The person
appointed will serve a three year term which will expire on December 31,2008.
In response to the news release dated September 2, one application has been received for the
Ward 3 opening and one application for the Ward 4 opening for the two available positions on the
Budget Committee
.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7, 2005
Page 21
.
The council interviewed One applicant for Ward 4 (Ms. Ellen L. Manzer) and agreed to appoint
her to the Ward 4 position. Council determined from past knowledge of the Maureen Sicotte, to
reappoint her to the Ward 3 position.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO APPOINT ELLEN MANZER TO THE WARD 4 BUDGET
COMMITTEE POSITION WITH A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31,2008. THE
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
IT WAS MOVED BY COUNCILOR WOODROW WITH A SECOND BY COUNCILOR
LUNDBERG TO APPOINT MAUREEN SICOTTE TO THE WARD 3 BUDGET
COMMITTEE POSITION WITH A TERM EXPIRING DECEMBER 31,2008. THE
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 6 FOR AND 0 AGAINST.
2. Business from Council.
a. Committee Reports
.
1. Councilor Ballew went to Portland last Wednesday as a member of the Freight
Advisory Committee, Policy Committee and Project Committee. On Friday, she and
several others went to an Oregon Metropolitan Policy Organization (MPO) meeting
in Corvallis. She said this Thursday was an MPO meeting where discussion would
be held regarding the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Plan (MTIP) and the
recent action by the Eugene Council On the West Eugene Parkway (WEP).
2. Mayor Leiken said he participated in the Veteran's Day Parade on Sunday and it was
very enjoyable. He said Councilor Ballew, Mike Kelly and he would be meeting
with representatives from Eugene. He said Councilor Woodrow would be attending
the Metropolitan Policy Committee (MPC) meeting as the Mayor would be attending
the League of Oregon Cities (LOC) Conference On Thursday, Friday and Saturday.
3. Councilor Ralston said the Fire and Life Safety Blue Ribbon Committee was meeting
tomorrow night to go through proposals of options. He and Councilor Ballew were
there to listen to the citizens input.
4. Councilor Woodrow attended the grand opening ofMaurices in the Gateway Mall
last Thursday. Maurices is a clothing store that has returned to the Gateway Mall
after a ten year hiatus.
5. Councilor Ballew said she appreciated staff giving the council the major construction
information sheets weekly.
.
6. Councilor Fitch thanked Mr. Kelly for his 16 years of service. She said it was a
difficult process to go through to look for a new City Manager. She thanked the
fmalists. She said the process may not have been done perfectly, but hopefully the
outcome mitigated that. She appreciated staff allowing council to find someone the
whole council could get behind and lead the community into the future. She thanked
Mr. Kelly for his time and effort for the city.
City of Springfield
Council Regular Meeting Minutes
November 7, 2005
Page 22
.
7. Councilor Ralston said Lane Regional Air Pollution Authority (LRAP A) had been
making good progress over the last three or four months. He said the board liked
Merlin Huff and had suggested offering him the director position. There are now
rumors that Eugene Mayor Kitty Piercy was going to let Eugene representative, Gary
Rayor's term expire and appoint David Monk. Mr. Rayor had been a reasonable and
objective member. Mr. Monk would likely be very controversial as he had been
considered as being very hostile to the business community. Councilor Ralston said
this would be presented to the board tomorrow. Mr. Huff had written a letter to
Mayor Piercy to reconsider her decision.
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY MANAGER
BUSINESS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY
Mr. Leahy said that as a constituent and taxpayer, he wanted to thank council for the time and
effort they spent on the City Manager recruitment. He said he knew they gave up recreational,
professional and personal time and spent a lot of time in anguish and emotion over this issue. He
said he believed that came up with something that would be good for the community. Their goal
was to work hard and come up with a commOn goal and they succeeded in that as they had done
On other issues that had come before them.
ADJOURNMENT
.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:28 p.m.
~
Minutes Recorder Amy Sowa
Attest:
~
City Reco r
.